avek00 wrote:

[In a nutshell, American financial law takes a dim view towards large transactions in the six months prior to a company debt default (or filing bankruptcy), or which occur during the course of bankruptcy proceedings. This transaction will fall outside that window, so it's one less thing for UA to worry about in the near term.

It's a 90-day look-back window for non-insider (UA to Boeing) transactions. Worse, once in Ch 11 UA could cancel the order before final deliveries. Neither the transaction or timing are without risk for both parties.

avek00 wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

Seems like a very poorly timed decision to me.

I disagree, the timing was excellent. United eventually needs those birds as replacement for existing birds. Furthermore -- and this is the important part -- as company finances come under increasing pressure later this year and into early 2021, the airline's ability to place such an order will be increasingly limited (doubly so if the airline eventually has to seek Chapter 11 protection). In a nutshell, American financial law takes a dim view towards large transactions in the six months prior to a company debt default (or filing bankruptcy), or which occur during the course of bankruptcy proceedings. This transaction will fall outside that window, so it's one less thing for UA to worry about in the near term.

That assumes that the aircraft are badly needed and that the recovery will be "V-shaped" or even W-shaped.

I think that many haven't quite understood the history lesson that Warren Buffett was trying to teach us on Saturday aboit the Great Depression.
It took the 20 years from the day he was born to the day he turned 20 for stock markets to get back to the same levels.
It could be 5 or more years before worldwide air traffic comes back to 2019's record levels.
Back when they discovered HIV, they expected to have a vaccine within 24 months.
It's hard to imagine that any new aircraft will be needed until the time either a vaccine is found or the world or sets of countries resolve to eradicate it with a temporary and total lockdown or other measure like distributing reusable hazmat suits to every person.

But supposing that we miracurously do get a swift recovery within 6 months, with the wave of airline bankruptcies lying ahead, plenty of newish aircraft and delivery positions will become available at 70-80% off list prices or 35-50% off residual value for any opportunistic airline in a position to grow.

Whether management will be scrutinised for making an order months before fiing for chapter 11 is one issue.
Whether an order is kept or tossed during a Chapter 11 bankruptcy is a different issue.

tphuang wrote:

I don't understand why 757s need to be back in service. AA is already retiring both 757 and 767s. I assume DL is not going to retire all of 757s, but maybe all the 300s. Demand for international flight will be down for 2 or 3 years at least. We are not that far away from XLR time. Given the cost of re-training and bring back all the 757/767 fleet and pilots, is there enough benefit to add back all that cost. I would assume that at some point, MAX 10 will be able to enter service, even if that's not 2021. Until then, you can put more 787s on these routes and operate them at lower frequency.

Training back into your old equipment is quick and doesn’t cost much. It’s a short course up until 60 months.

Also United can choose to cance displacement LS and grandfather crews back into the fleet of demand begins to return.

KVH68 wrote:

Does anyone know the progress of the new United hangar at LAX? They broke ground on March 2019, and it was supposed to be finished this year. When I look at the satellite image on Google Maps, I don't see any new construction. Here is a link with more details about the project.

https://www.lawa.org/en/lawa-our-lax/en ... aintenance

Construction of the hangar is continuing as I type this. It is slated to be completed next year, the link is a little out of date.

As long as United is charging 2 - 2.5 x that AA is charging in our market, I don't see how their traffic is going to recover anytime. Is your market area seeing the same issue? (SHV)

Also, when they chop hub-hub flying down to one flight (see DEN-IAH on May 23rd - and yes, I know it is a holiday weekend) there are so many broken connections in the system now that even if you did want to go somewhere UAL has given up on getting you there with the 2 connection strategy.

Until more states start to ease restrictions on dining/working, United is going to have very tough sledding. I wish them the best, but even more so, I wish the employees and their families that the rebound will be swift.

UA857 wrote:

Is there a reason why United's Domestic Ghetto Bird 763s and Hawaii configured 772 skipped the Rising Blue livery and were directly repainted from the Battleship Grey livery to the Continental Globe livery and only the International 763s and 772s got the Rising Blue colors?

The domestic ones were newer and didn’t need paint as soon as the other ones did. A UA employee actually posted a paint schedule before the merger on this site that listed them to be painted in 3Q 2010 but that obviously didn’t happen.

PRAirbus wrote:

United announced pilot furloughs and base closures and now are adding these planes? Wondering how UA fleet cuts compare to AA/DL.A sad Fall is approaching for US carriers...I suspect there will be another industry bailout

You have no idea what you are talking about. Aside from the industry bailout round 2.

KFTG wrote:

PRAirbus wrote:

United announced pilot furloughs and base closures and now are adding these planes? Wondering how UA fleet cuts compare to AA/DL.A sad Fall is approaching for US carriers...I suspect there will be another industry bailout

You have no idea what you are talking about. Aside from the industry bailout round 2.

I really didn’t think anything he said was that out there?

How much is this dumping to keep the Charleston line running?

Boeing gave them a hell of a deal (again) it's what's more than likely what went down.

Those 787-10s seem to have teething issues, shouldn't they wait or did Boeing give them away essentially for free?

N649DL wrote:

Boeing gave them a hell of a deal (again) it's what's more than likely what went down.

Those 787-10s seem to have teething issues, shouldn't they wait or did Boeing give them away essentially for free?

There are 55 78Js delivered and in service. Doesn't appear the teething issues are materially problematic.

gwrudolph wrote:

unnayan wrote:

I wonder if the funding is coming from CARES act whilst they are planning to fire employees... That will be a shame if true....

Since the CARES act money doesn’t even cover the cost of payroll they need to keep on through September 30th in exchange for that money, I would say no, the CARES act funding isn’t being used for aircraft acquisition . . .

you could argue that them exercising these options is clear evidence that they did not need any assistance from the government

could have used the money to keep paying salaries

The order was placed before the Pandemic!

Pretty smart move by UA. UA needs to start replacing their 772/77E fleet soon. 781 is proven to work extremely well with UA's network and will definitely be the backbone of future UA wide-body fleet. I am sure UA got a good deal for this.

Also, another huge win for Boeing!

drdisque wrote:

I expect 777-200 retirement to be accelerated intensely. Many 777-200ER's configured for long-haul may never come back at all. The 777A's may be parked and operated only when there is demand. The 773's may be sold/negotiated return.

United's 773 are new and acquired as "end of the line" planes with "good" pricing, why would UA return new planes just a few years old ? The world will soon be full of 773 coming of lease and bankruptcy repossesions. Values for 773 have gone in only one direction, way down. With UA's route system there are many places these birds can be used, even if ts primarily for their cargo space. Newark to Tel Aviv or India should be ok. Tokyo and Shanghai could use them too.

jfk777 wrote:

drdisque wrote:

I expect 777-200 retirement to be accelerated intensely. Many 777-200ER's configured for long-haul may never come back at all. The 777A's may be parked and operated only when there is demand. The 773's may be sold/negotiated return.

United's 773 are new and acquired as "end of the line" planes with "good" pricing, why would UA return new planes just a few years old ? The world will soon be full of 773 coming of lease and bankruptcy repossesions. Values for 773 have gone in only one direction, way down. With UA's route system there are many places these birds can be used, even if ts primarily for their cargo space. Newark to Tel Aviv or India should be ok. Tokyo and Shanghai could use them too.

Not to mention UA's 77W is their current flagship with brand new J seats. No way UA would return those 77W.

jfk777 wrote:

drdisque wrote:

I expect 777-200 retirement to be accelerated intensely. Many 777-200ER's configured for long-haul may never come back at all. The 777A's may be parked and operated only when there is demand. The 773's may be sold/negotiated return.

United's 773 are new and acquired as "end of the line" planes with "good" pricing, why would UA return new planes just a few years old ? The world will soon be full of 773 coming of lease and bankruptcy repossesions. Values for 773 have gone in only one direction, way down. With UA's route system there are many places these birds can be used, even if ts primarily for their cargo space. Newark to Tel Aviv or India should be ok. Tokyo and Shanghai could use them too.

Picking nits, but UA has end of the line 77Ws, not 773s.

That said, your post is spot on as 1. the 77Ws are new and part of their Polaris fleet 2. The 78J cannot do what the 77W does, they are complimentary aircraft for different networks.

Antarius wrote:

N649DL wrote:

Boeing gave them a hell of a deal (again) it's what's more than likely what went down.

Those 787-10s seem to have teething issues, shouldn't they wait or did Boeing give them away essentially for free?

There are 55 78Js delivered and in service. Doesn't appear the teething issues are materially problematic.

If they already had the orders in place, then why is this news?

Glad to see that for now, more 787s are on the way to UA's fleet. I have flown a large majority of UA's 787-10s and they are fantastic aircraft.

As for the other arguments as to when they were ordered...WHO CARES? New aircraft have been ordered and that's pretty cool. UA ordered A321s before Wuhan tanked the world, think that order is safer than this?....... I hope the overall economy boomerangs back and all the orders are secure. At this time though, no one really knows. You could make an argument that the 787 order is more secure than the A321. Market fragmentation is at a stand still and frequency isn't going to be needed for a while. One large jet a day, going EWR-CDG is much cheaper than 3 757/A321 doing 3 flights.

Antarius wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

drdisque wrote:

I expect 777-200 retirement to be accelerated intensely. Many 777-200ER's configured for long-haul may never come back at all. The 777A's may be parked and operated only when there is demand. The 773's may be sold/negotiated return.

United's 773 are new and acquired as "end of the line" planes with "good" pricing, why would UA return new planes just a few years old ? The world will soon be full of 773 coming of lease and bankruptcy repossesions. Values for 773 have gone in only one direction, way down. With UA's route system there are many places these birds can be used, even if ts primarily for their cargo space. Newark to Tel Aviv or India should be ok. Tokyo and Shanghai could use them too.

Picking nits, but UA has end of the line 77Ws, not 773s.

That said, your post is spot on as 1. the 77Ws are new and part of their Polaris fleet 2. The 78J cannot do what the 77W does, they are complimentary aircraft for different networks.

Word on the street and this is just word on the street, has the fleet looking like 737, 777, 787. Everything else goes away over time. Overall, those three options give you the ability to do small, medium and large. Other smaller fleets for specific routes will just cost too much. You can see AA doing a similar thing but 737/320, 777 and 787.

CX747 wrote:

Glad to see that for now, more 787s are on the way to UA's fleet. I have flown a large majority of UA's 787-10s and they are fantastic aircraft.

As for the other arguments as to when they were ordered...WHO CARES? New aircraft have been ordered and that's pretty cool. UA ordered A321s before Wuhan tanked the world, think that order is safer than this?....... I hope the overall economy boomerangs back and all the orders are secure. At this time though, no one really knows. You could make an argument that the 787 order is more secure than the A321. Market fragmentation is at a stand still and frequency isn't going to be needed for a while. One large jet a day, going EWR-CDG is much cheaper than 3 757/A321 doing 3 flights.

The A321 order should be fine. With the rumors about the 757’s having one foot out the door and the large numbers of A319’s and A320’s that will have to be replaced down the line, I’d say goodbye to the A350’s and hello to a substantial A321 order increase.

So if the 767s stay parked, at least for now, what's the most likely use of the 78Js once traffic starts to pick up? Would both TATL and the PS routes be in play until the A321s arrive?

sldispatcher wrote:

As long as United is charging 2 - 2.5 x that AA is charging in our market, I don't see how their traffic is going to recover anytime. Is your market area seeing the same issue? (SHV)

Also, when they chop hub-hub flying down to one flight (see DEN-IAH on May 23rd - and yes, I know it is a holiday weekend) there are so many broken connections in the system now that even if you did want to go somewhere UAL has given up on getting you there with the 2 connection strategy.

Until more states start to ease restrictions on dining/working, United is going to have very tough sledding. I wish them the best, but even more so, I wish the employees and their families that the rebound will be swift.

Pricing is out of the window, there is no demans... what is the difference in United not selling a seat at $500 round trip and American not selling a trip at $300?

N3340W wrote:

So if the 767s stay parked, at least for now, what's the most likely use of the 78Js once traffic starts to pick up? Would both TATL and the PS routes be in play until the A321s arrive?

ORD:
78J

LHR
BRU
GRU
CDG
LAX
SFO
HNL

There is essentially zero price elasticity in the market today. Even Gary Kelly at Southwest says pricing does not count today so there is no reason to lower prices.

The airline pricing departments have essentially taken the month off so whatever you see out there are really place holder fares that no one really expects to sell many of.

That is my point. At least it looks like American is trying to hold the DFW hub together. The IAH hub feeder spokes in June are being ripped to shreds.
Reminds me of route planning towards the end of the Delta era at DFW.

I’m hoping this next weekend will bring more states to open things up and give people confidence to book again. UAL needs all the help it can get.

N649DL wrote:

Antarius wrote:

N649DL wrote:

Boeing gave them a hell of a deal (again) it's what's more than likely what went down.

Those 787-10s seem to have teething issues, shouldn't they wait or did Boeing give them away essentially for free?

There are 55 78Js delivered and in service. Doesn't appear the teething issues are materially problematic.

If they already had the orders in place, then why is this news?

?

I said that there are 55 78Js in operation around the world. Not sure how that pertains to timing of orders

Nicknuzzii wrote:

The order was placed before the Pandemic!

I agree, this was an order placed prior to knowing the changes and implications that Covid-19 gave us all.

CX747 wrote:

I have flown a large majority of UA's 787-10s and they are fantastic aircraft.

Well, flying with a 787 and the experience depends on where you are seated. In Y, it's just the "crampliner". I rather go for an old B767 or A330.

tphuang wrote:

CX747 wrote:

Glad to see that for now, more 787s are on the way to UA's fleet. I have flown a large majority of UA's 787-10s and they are fantastic aircraft.

As for the other arguments as to when they were ordered...WHO CARES? New aircraft have been ordered and that's pretty cool. UA ordered A321s before Wuhan tanked the world, think that order is safer than this?....... I hope the overall economy boomerangs back and all the orders are secure. At this time though, no one really knows. You could make an argument that the 787 order is more secure than the A321. Market fragmentation is at a stand still and frequency isn't going to be needed for a while. One large jet a day, going EWR-CDG is much cheaper than 3 757/A321 doing 3 flights.

hmm yes, in a reduced demand market, A321XLR is far more economical than 787. If UA is trying to use 787-9/10 against AA/B6 flying A321XLR in a long thin market out of EWR, it will get killed.

Not true in all cases...think about it. If AA flies JFK>DUB and PHL>DUB on the 321 and UA does EWR>DUB on the 78J, who do you think wins?

tphuang wrote:

CX747 wrote:

Glad to see that for now, more 787s are on the way to UA's fleet. I have flown a large majority of UA's 787-10s and they are fantastic aircraft.

As for the other arguments as to when they were ordered...WHO CARES? New aircraft have been ordered and that's pretty cool. UA ordered A321s before Wuhan tanked the world, think that order is safer than this?....... I hope the overall economy boomerangs back and all the orders are secure. At this time though, no one really knows. You could make an argument that the 787 order is more secure than the A321. Market fragmentation is at a stand still and frequency isn't going to be needed for a while. One large jet a day, going EWR-CDG is much cheaper than 3 757/A321 doing 3 flights.

hmm yes, in a reduced demand market, A321XLR is far more economical than 787. If UA is trying to use 787-9/10 against AA/B6 flying A321XLR in a long thin market out of EWR, it will get killed.

That's with a belief that long thin markets are actually viable. A long thin market by UA in the future would potentially be flown by a 737 MAX. In addition, EWR-CDG is not a long thin market. In a new reality where frequency is no longer king, one flight a day from EWR-CDG is better served by 1 787-10 than 3 757/A321.

fun2fly wrote:

tphuang wrote:

CX747 wrote:

Glad to see that for now, more 787s are on the way to UA's fleet. I have flown a large majority of UA's 787-10s and they are fantastic aircraft.

As for the other arguments as to when they were ordered...WHO CARES? New aircraft have been ordered and that's pretty cool. UA ordered A321s before Wuhan tanked the world, think that order is safer than this?....... I hope the overall economy boomerangs back and all the orders are secure. At this time though, no one really knows. You could make an argument that the 787 order is more secure than the A321. Market fragmentation is at a stand still and frequency isn't going to be needed for a while. One large jet a day, going EWR-CDG is much cheaper than 3 757/A321 doing 3 flights.

hmm yes, in a reduced demand market, A321XLR is far more economical than 787. If UA is trying to use 787-9/10 against AA/B6 flying A321XLR in a long thin market out of EWR, it will get killed.

Not true in all cases...think about it. If AA flies JFK>DUB and PHL>DUB on the 321 and UA does EWR>DUB on the 78J, who do you think wins?

United because the fiscal ability to fly from both PHL and JFK to DUB will not be there. AA is parking planes at a greater rate than UA. You think they are going to open up two international routes? More than likely, one international route to DUB would be flown from one chosen hub. In some of the markets where DL is reintroducing international service, they are operating to a destination once a week. I truly wish that demand/service slams right back to where it was. Carriers are stating that is not going to happen.

tphuang wrote:

fun2fly wrote:

tphuang wrote:

hmm yes, in a reduced demand market, A321XLR is far more economical than 787. If UA is trying to use 787-9/10 against AA/B6 flying A321XLR in a long thin market out of EWR, it will get killed.

Not true in all cases...think about it. If AA flies JFK>DUB and PHL>DUB on the 321 and UA does EWR>DUB on the 78J, who do you think wins?

Lower capacity aircraft with slightly higher unit cost results in much higher rasm. That's why you see in transcon market, narrowbody is winning.

You can either offer better schedule with multiple frequencies or offer same frequency and the lower number of seats will result in your RASM. In longer market, A321XLR would allow you to offer service year round or daily vs seasonal or 3x weekly with a larger aircraft.

AA flies JFK to DUB on a 772 and PHL to DUB on an A332/333.

Nicknuzzii wrote:

tphuang wrote:

fun2fly wrote:

Not true in all cases...think about it. If AA flies JFK>DUB and PHL>DUB on the 321 and UA does EWR>DUB on the 78J, who do you think wins?

Lower capacity aircraft with slightly higher unit cost results in much higher rasm. That's why you see in transcon market, narrowbody is winning.

You can either offer better schedule with multiple frequencies or offer same frequency and the lower number of seats will result in your RASM. In longer market, A321XLR would allow you to offer service year round or daily vs seasonal or 3x weekly with a larger aircraft.

AA flies JFK to DUB on a 772 and PHL to DUB on an A332/333.

It was an example, plug in any city, LIS or whatever.

fun2fly wrote:

Nicknuzzii wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Lower capacity aircraft with slightly higher unit cost results in much higher rasm. That's why you see in transcon market, narrowbody is winning.

You can either offer better schedule with multiple frequencies or offer same frequency and the lower number of seats will result in your RASM. In longer market, A321XLR would allow you to offer service year round or daily vs seasonal or 3x weekly with a larger aircraft.

AA flies JFK to DUB on a 772 and PHL to DUB on an A332/333.

It was an example, plug in any city, LIS or whatever.

UA has the ability to fly to DUB or any city with a 321XLR just as much as AA does.

tphuang wrote:

fun2fly wrote:

tphuang wrote:

hmm yes, in a reduced demand market, A321XLR is far more economical than 787. If UA is trying to use 787-9/10 against AA/B6 flying A321XLR in a long thin market out of EWR, it will get killed.

Not true in all cases...think about it. If AA flies JFK>DUB and PHL>DUB on the 321 and UA does EWR>DUB on the 78J, who do you think wins?

Lower capacity aircraft with slightly higher unit cost results in much higher rasm. That's why you see in transcon market, narrowbody is winning.

You can either offer better schedule with multiple frequencies or offer same frequency and the lower number of seats will result in your RASM. In longer market, A321XLR would allow you to offer service year round or daily vs seasonal or 3x weekly with a larger aircraft.

I think we are slightly talking past one another. You are correct when we look at the economic model of 6-8 months ago. That is not our current climate. Those models are now incorrect, inaccurate and not worth very much. Have you seen the Pittsburgh video shot by the AA pilot when landing there? A mega ton of AA aircraft just sitting, parked on an adjacent taxiway. Not one or two, how about 40-70 A32X aircraft. No work, no flights and no need of a crew.

An overwhelming portion of an airline's fleet at this time is grounded. UA itself is parking their entire 757/767 fleet. The ability to operate, crew and fill multiple daily departures is not there anymore. Therefore, in an instance of long haul flying from EWR-DUB, you will not see 3 daily A321 flights. You will see consolidation on multiple levels. You will now get a once daily EWR-DUB on a 787-10, in lieu of multiple daily EWR departures OR departures to DUB from multiple US cities. Possibly, EWR-DUB will be three times weekly, not even daily. So where multiple 757/767/787 aircraft flew for UA, you may now see just a daily 787.

fun2fly wrote:

tphuang wrote:

CX747 wrote:

Glad to see that for now, more 787s are on the way to UA's fleet. I have flown a large majority of UA's 787-10s and they are fantastic aircraft.

As for the other arguments as to when they were ordered...WHO CARES? New aircraft have been ordered and that's pretty cool. UA ordered A321s before Wuhan tanked the world, think that order is safer than this?....... I hope the overall economy boomerangs back and all the orders are secure. At this time though, no one really knows. You could make an argument that the 787 order is more secure than the A321. Market fragmentation is at a stand still and frequency isn't going to be needed for a while. One large jet a day, going EWR-CDG is much cheaper than 3 757/A321 doing 3 flights.

hmm yes, in a reduced demand market, A321XLR is far more economical than 787. If UA is trying to use 787-9/10 against AA/B6 flying A321XLR in a long thin market out of EWR, it will get killed.

Not true in all cases...think about it. If AA flies JFK>DUB and PHL>DUB on the 321 and UA does EWR>DUB on the 78J, who do you think wins?

Every flight is different. With the 78J you have the benefit of PMC pallets. I’ve had flights were the freight paid for the entire flight. The A321 is very nice but with all of the fuel tank modifications, it’s just a flying gas tank, bags, loose freight, and SPD’s only. The mission profile is different.

What are the odds UA parts ways with some 787s and 77Ws? It may seem counterintuitive, but UA did shed a handful of newer 744s and 77Es during Ch 11.

Nicknuzzii wrote:

fun2fly wrote:

Nicknuzzii wrote:

AA flies JFK to DUB on a 772 and PHL to DUB on an A332/333.

It was an example, plug in any city, LIS or whatever.

UA has the ability to fly to DUB or any city with a 321XLR just as much as AA does.

Your point was if UA flies a 787 to a city and AA flies a 321XLR, then AA wins. My point is that is not true. If you have to move 300 pax to one city and you do it on 2 x 321XLR or 1 787, then the 787 wins. You have to look at the network and decide, not the one segment that proves only your point. The true answer is that it depends on the volume, number of gateways and a/c utliization.

intotheair wrote:

What are the odds UA parts ways with some 787s and 77Ws? It may seem counterintuitive, but UA did shed a handful of newer 744s and 77Es during Ch 11.

Those were bankruptcy-related lease rejections/returns, administered by the court, and only works if the lessor can place the aircraft elsewhere to generate a better return. Not a likely scenario now with globally depressed demand and UA (so far) out of bankruptcy.

As the country is opening up, I made a couple calls to 3 friends and a relative that are are either a 1K or GS to see what there travel plans are and found out some startling, very concerning information. Below:

United Global Service member based in Austin: Needs to go to SFO a few times in June but over all, not going to be traveling much. United has no nonstops to SFO right now loaded and he said he will probably wait til a week before to book and he said he will be flying Alaska vs United if United doesn't load and nonstops because Alaska still has a nonstop (assuming they operate it). He said it will be his first time on Alaska.

United 1K in Houston: manages a construction site in Omaha...flies back and forth every week, even during covid to manage job site. United has cancelled so many flights he hasn't even been able to connect the last several weeks, gave up on United and has been flying American through Dallas lately instead. He is very mad at United for booking flights through DEN or ORD and cancelled all their flights on several days with zero options even with long layovers to get back and forth. He said American has cancelled some flights but still seems to be operating several flights a day between Dallas and both Houston and Omaha and hasn't been an issue. He had all his flights booked for June, united just pulled their schedule to eliminate OMA-IAH for June this past weekend. Spent Sunday on phone with United arguing and cancelling the flights. Said he will be re-booking with American.

United 1K in Omaha: Needs to go to Newark mid-June to receive a high dollar international shipment. Tried to book OMA-EWR Sunday and can't even get there with a connection in Chicago. She is super mad and has been a United loyalist. I suggested to try WN, she hates WN and said she would rather drive. lol. She said she'll probably end up on either American or Delta as the trip isn't an option but has to go.

United 1K in Omaha: In financial sector and was looking to get has travel back in order for June...also said flights are so limited with only a single flight a day to ORD from Omaha in June that he can't get any roundtrips to even price out and if they do, they have a super long layover. He said he will be looking at other airlines this week. Note all said they plan on flying in July too but none will be looking to book anything for several weeks until schedules finalize.

That said, out of the 4 1k/GS friends I spoke to Sunday night and last night, really none are booking United and all 4 are going to be traveling in June. Seems like most are waiting til last few weeks to book to make sure schedules are finalized as stuff has changed so much but if there is nothing to book, will need to book with other airlines.

My personal opinion after hearing this, United needs to be very careful not to lose too many high dollar elites. For example, after some searching, they are only flying 1 OMA-ORD in June and it doesn't even operate ever day. ORD-EWR is only 2x daily. You really can't run an airline with a schedule like that. I'd say at a minimum, you need 2x daily OMA-ORD and 5x daily ORD-EWR (hub to hub). Also, should probably be flying 1x daily OMA-IAH on a 50-seater.

If United doesn't add flights for June or start flying a reasonable schedule that allows for connections, other airlines will gain big time over United. and United loads will stay anemic.

As a side note, I'm a United Platinum, Iowa based, I don't know when I will fly next. Probably late June or July but won't be booking anytime soon.

Thoughts?

joeljack wrote:

As the country is opening up, I made a couple calls to 3 friends and a relative that are are either a 1K or GS to see what there travel plans are and found out some startling, very concerning information. Below:

United Global Service member based in Austin: Needs to go to SFO a few times in June but over all, not going to be traveling much. United has no nonstops to SFO right now loaded and he said he will probably wait til a week before to book and he said he will be flying Alaska vs United if United doesn't load and nonstops because Alaska still has a nonstop (assuming they operate it). He said it will be his first time on Alaska.

United 1K in Houston: manages a construction site in Omaha...flies back and forth every week, even during covid to manage job site. United has cancelled so many flights he hasn't even been able to connect the last several weeks, gave up on United and has been flying American through Dallas lately instead. He is very mad at United for booking flights through DEN or ORD and cancelled all their flights on several days with zero options even with long layovers to get back and forth. He said American has cancelled some flights but still seems to be operating several flights a day between Dallas and both Houston and Omaha and hasn't been an issue. He had all his flights booked for June, united just pulled their schedule to eliminate OMA-IAH for June this past weekend. Spent Sunday on phone with United arguing and cancelling the flights. Said he will be re-booking with American.

United 1K in Omaha: Needs to go to Newark mid-June to receive a high dollar international shipment. Tried to book OMA-EWR Sunday and can't even get there with a connection in Chicago. She is super mad and has been a United loyalist. I suggested to try WN, she hates WN and said she would rather drive. lol. She said she'll probably end up on either American or Delta as the trip isn't an option but has to go.

United 1K in Omaha: In financial sector and was looking to get has travel back in order for June...also said flights are so limited with only a single flight a day to ORD from Omaha in June that he can't get any roundtrips to even price out and if they do, they have a super long layover. He said he will be looking at other airlines this week. Note all said they plan on flying in July too but none will be looking to book anything for several weeks until schedules finalize.

That said, out of the 4 1k/GS friends I spoke to Sunday night and last night, really none are booking United and all 4 are going to be traveling in June. Seems like most are waiting til last few weeks to book to make sure schedules are finalized as stuff has changed so much but if there is nothing to book, will need to book with other airlines.

My personal opinion after hearing this, United needs to be very careful not to lose too many high dollar elites. For example, after some searching, they are only flying 1 OMA-ORD in June and it doesn't even operate ever day. ORD-EWR is only 2x daily. You really can't run an airline with a schedule like that. I'd say at a minimum, you need 2x daily OMA-ORD and 5x daily ORD-EWR (hub to hub). Also, should probably be flying 1x daily OMA-IAH on a 50-seater.

If United doesn't add flights for June or start flying a reasonable schedule that allows for connections, other airlines will gain big time over United. and United loads will stay anemic.

As a side note, I'm a United Platinum, Iowa based, I don't know when I will fly next. Probably late June or July but won't be booking anytime soon.

Thoughts?

Well I can’t really say much for the first two, though Alaska has only been operating a handful (~15) daily flights at SFO, so I seriously doubt they’ll be offering a nonstop to AUS in June. The two in OMA are full of it though.

United just redesigned their schedule in May to improve connections and will be implementing similar changes for June either this weekend or next. Most of the hubs ran roughly a 30% seat factor yesterday with this new schedule so I’m not sure why everyone is so down on the United schedule.

There are currently two daily flights OMA-ORD and OMA-DEN, both of which line up with the “mega banks” that have been built in each hub, and both of which offer 45-60 minute connections to anywhere they want to go.

For example, OMA-EWR via ORD:

OMA 0630 ORD 0811
ORD 0920 EWR 1224

OMA 1515 ORD 1658
ORD 1745 EWR 2055

Even your friend who wants to go IAH-OMA should not have much longer than a 1 hour layover in ORD or DEN, though he’s right that it’s a bit out of the way versus going through DFW.

UALifer wrote:

Well I can’t really say much for the first two, though Alaska has only been operating a handful (~15) daily flights at SFO, so I seriously doubt they’ll be offering a nonstop to AUS in June. The two in OMA are full of it though..

The AS schedule for June is very likely the schedule you're seeing now for May...1x daily SFO-AUS. I don't believe AS is going to be cutting any more than they already have. That said, who knows what tomorrow holds.

joeljack wrote:

As the country is opening up, I made a couple calls to 3 friends and a relative that are are either a 1K or GS to see what there travel plans are and found out some startling, very concerning information. Below:

United Global Service member based in Austin: Needs to go to SFO a few times in June but over all, not going to be traveling much. United has no nonstops to SFO right now loaded and he said he will probably wait til a week before to book and he said he will be flying Alaska vs United if United doesn't load and nonstops because Alaska still has a nonstop (assuming they operate it). He said it will be his first time on Alaska.

United 1K in Houston: manages a construction site in Omaha...flies back and forth every week, even during covid to manage job site. United has cancelled so many flights he hasn't even been able to connect the last several weeks, gave up on United and has been flying American through Dallas lately instead. He is very mad at United for booking flights through DEN or ORD and cancelled all their flights on several days with zero options even with long layovers to get back and forth. He said American has cancelled some flights but still seems to be operating several flights a day between Dallas and both Houston and Omaha and hasn't been an issue. He had all his flights booked for June, united just pulled their schedule to eliminate OMA-IAH for June this past weekend. Spent Sunday on phone with United arguing and cancelling the flights. Said he will be re-booking with American.

United 1K in Omaha: Needs to go to Newark mid-June to receive a high dollar international shipment. Tried to book OMA-EWR Sunday and can't even get there with a connection in Chicago. She is super mad and has been a United loyalist. I suggested to try WN, she hates WN and said she would rather drive. lol. She said she'll probably end up on either American or Delta as the trip isn't an option but has to go.

United 1K in Omaha: In financial sector and was looking to get has travel back in order for June...also said flights are so limited with only a single flight a day to ORD from Omaha in June that he can't get any roundtrips to even price out and if they do, they have a super long layover. He said he will be looking at other airlines this week. Note all said they plan on flying in July too but none will be looking to book anything for several weeks until schedules finalize.

That said, out of the 4 1k/GS friends I spoke to Sunday night and last night, really none are booking United and all 4 are going to be traveling in June. Seems like most are waiting til last few weeks to book to make sure schedules are finalized as stuff has changed so much but if there is nothing to book, will need to book with other airlines.

My personal opinion after hearing this, United needs to be very careful not to lose too many high dollar elites. For example, after some searching, they are only flying 1 OMA-ORD in June and it doesn't even operate ever day. ORD-EWR is only 2x daily. You really can't run an airline with a schedule like that. I'd say at a minimum, you need 2x daily OMA-ORD and 5x daily ORD-EWR (hub to hub). Also, should probably be flying 1x daily OMA-IAH on a 50-seater.

If United doesn't add flights for June or start flying a reasonable schedule that allows for connections, other airlines will gain big time over United. and United loads will stay anemic.

As a side note, I'm a United Platinum, Iowa based, I don't know when I will fly next. Probably late June or July but won't be booking anytime soon.

Thoughts?

Anecdotal of course, but from my few travel experiences in the past 2 months or so and the folks I’ve talked to, the problem seems to be the regional flights, which would probably make sense for your OMA friends.

At first mainline was doing a ton of close in cancels as well, but they’ve finally reduced schedules enough that they largely seem to operate everything. Can’t say the same for my regional flights over the past few months.

Looking at FlightAware today, all 4 of the big guys are at or below 1% cancelations, while Envoy sits at 14%, SkyWest at 10%, Endeavor at 11%, etc.

hiflyeras wrote:

UALifer wrote:

Well I can’t really say much for the first two, though Alaska has only been operating a handful (~15) daily flights at SFO, so I seriously doubt they’ll be offering a nonstop to AUS in June. The two in OMA are full of it though..

The AS schedule for June is very likely the schedule you're seeing now for May...1x daily SFO-AUS. I don't believe AS is going to be cutting any more than they already have. That said, who knows what tomorrow holds.

His friend might want to give himself an extra day when traveling.

The AS flight leaves at 1600 and has been canceling roughly a third of the time. He does have a couple of reroute options UA via IAH and AA via DFW but leaving that late in the day seriously limits your options.

Everyone needs to be a little more flexible right now....even GS and 1K members....as none of the airlines are capable of flying a full schedule right now. I'm sure UA will add SFO-AUS back as soon as they can.

hiflyeras wrote:

UALifer wrote:

Well I can’t really say much for the first two, though Alaska has only been operating a handful (~15) daily flights at SFO, so I seriously doubt they’ll be offering a nonstop to AUS in June. The two in OMA are full of it though..

The AS schedule for June is very likely the schedule you're seeing now for May...1x daily SFO-AUS. I don't believe AS is going to be cutting any more than they already have. That said, who knows what tomorrow holds.

Fair enough, I didn’t actually check where those 15 daily flights were going. I suppose if you have to serve AUS from somewhere, SFO is closer than SEA. It does look they’ve cancelled it fairly often though, at least recently.